Author
Topic: Closed Canon: What's the point? (Read 2690 times)

I was lurking on the Baptistboard today, and an advocate of sola Scriptura asked an interesting question: "What's the point of even having a closed canon of Scripture if the writings of fathers, creeds, councils are equally authoritative? Or conversely: "Since the teachings/writings of the Church since the completion of the NT are appealed to for correct doctrines, how can one say the canon is closed?"

How would the Orthodox respond to this? For historically, the canon was (more or less) closed at the end of the 4th century and/or beginning of the 5th. This particular Baptist seemed to argue, for instance, that since: (a)the Scripture doesn't specifically spell out a supernatural "change" in the elements of the bread and wine to the Body and Blood, and since (b)that belief is only found in writings of the fathers after the NT was written, that these post-NT writings really should have no bearing on interpreting the NT because: (1)the canon is confined only to the NT, and therefore: (2) any belief in"change" (as opposed to metaphor) is an addition to the faith and is thus a deviation from it. I've tried arguing with this guy that the REAL PRESENCE is the Biblical teaching, especially given the straight forward language involved (eg John 6, I Corinthians 10:16-17 and 11:23-30), but he would have none of it, alleging a gradual deviation of the true NT interpretation based on the fact that the word "change" doesn't appear in the NT and only appears in the 2nd century. Any thoughts about this particular allegation?

He thinks that Christ has gone for now and He shall return in the future.

There is no need to ask the friends of Christ, the saints of Church, because by himself has made a pact with Christ to be personally informed about anything regarding the faith by the Holy Spirit. If he needs guidance all that he needs is just to pray and the Holy Spirit will kindly respond. That is the baptist's life.

He asks for an answer that is already given by the way he lives his life. He does not need anything and anyone. He is the canon himself.

You're friend's bit about the Eucharist is rather odd. If I handed you a piece of ice and said, "This is ice," would you assume I was speaking metaphorically because I didn't say, "This has been changed from liquid water to ice"? Really, I don't know how St. Paul could have been more clear when he said that people will be judged for eating without "discerning the body".As to the closed canon, a lot of the Fathers talked about the sufficiency of Scripture to teach all necessary doctrine, but emphasized the need to discern the "pattern" beneath Scripture. St. Irenaios especially taught this, saying that the "rule of faith" was necessary as an interpretive principle.

Perhaps you could ask the Baptist why he accepts the NT Canon when the Church that established it also put forth the idea of the real presence in the Eucharist. You really can't have both-either you accept the authority of the Church to make the canon (and thus the Church should also have the authority to interpret it), or you start compiling your own canon.

I've said a lot of what I'm prepared to say on the canon at this thread. The only further points I will make are... First, the idea of a fixed canon has never, and will never, bring about doctrinal unity or agreement. Orthodoxy is the only group that still allows some degree of disagreement as to what constitutes the canon, and yet they are one of the most stable (if not THE most stable) doctrinally. Second, the Scripture is sufficient, but as St. Vincent of Lerins says, because people disagree there must be something outside of Scripture to interpret it. Put another way, the Bible is a meaningless text, even if infallible, without an interpreter. And third, we don't create doctrines that contradict Scripture, and no one would say that the Fathers are on the same level as Scripture; we merely cite them as articulating what the early Christians believed, or at least were not against. We are in this way no different than every other Christian group; if the fellow disagrees you can ask him where the Bible says to talk about theology on the internet.

Logged

"as [you've] informed us that respect chills love, it is natural to conclude that all your pretty flights arise from your pampered sensibility; and that, vain of this fancied preeminence of organs, you foster every emotion till the fumes, mounting to your brain, dispel the sober suggestions of reason. It is not in this view surprising that when you should argue you become impassioned, and that reflection inflames your imagination instead of enlightening your understanding." - Mary Wollstonecraft

Perhaps you could ask the Baptist why he accepts the NT Canon when the Church that established it also put forth the idea of the real presence in the Eucharist. You really can't have both-either you accept the authority of the Church to make the canon (and thus the Church should also have the authority to interpret it), or you start compiling your own canon.

I've said a lot of what I'm prepared to say on the canon at this thread. The only further points I will make are... First, the idea of a fixed canon has never, and will never, bring about doctrinal unity or agreement. Orthodoxy is the only group that still allows some degree of disagreement as to what constitutes the canon, and yet they are one of the most stable (if not THE most stable) doctrinally. Second, the Scripture is sufficient, but as St. Vincent of Lerins says, because people disagree there must be something outside of Scripture to interpret it. Put another way, the Bible is a meaningless text, even if infallible, without an interpreter. And third, we don't create doctrines that contradict Scripture, and no one would say that the Fathers are on the same level as Scripture; we merely cite them as articulating what the early Christians believed, or at least were not against. We are in this way no different than every other Christian group; if the fellow disagrees you can ask him where the Bible says to talk about theology on the internet.

Good answers. (I can't believe I forgot about St. Vincent of Lerins!) I particularly like the statement about citing the fathers "as articulating what the early Christians believed, or at least were not against".